Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/45 vs The State Of Assam And Ors on 25 February, 2025
Page No.# 1/45
GAHC010028992025
2025:GAU-AS:1979-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/49/2025
DR NETRAMONI BARUAH AND ORS
S/O JIBON CHANDRA BARUAH
RESIDENT OF CHALCHALIRANGIA GAON P.O. CHALCHALI, DIST
NAGAON ASSAM 782141
2: DR. PRAMILA KUMARI PRAJAPATI
D/O LATE DASHRATH PRAJAPATI
R/O LARICA GREEN VALLEY
BLOCK 5
FLAT NO. 506
P.O. AZARA
PIN 781017
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
3: PHIJU PAO
S/O MAGEN PAO
R/O VILL- 3 NO. SHANTIPUR SADIYA
P.O. CHAPAKHOWA DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM
PIN-786157
4: MRIDUPABAN SHARMA
S/O BOIRENDRA NATH SHARMA
R/O CHIRINGCHAPORIKHATONIAR PARA
P.O. DIBRUGARH DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM
PIN-786001.
5: MRS. PRANAMI SARMA
D/O NITISH SARMA
R/O P.O. BAIHATACHARIALI DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM PIN-781381
6: SANJEEB KALITA
Page No.# 2/45
S/O LATE UDAY KALITA R/O TIHU TOWN
WARD NO. 1
P.O. TIHU
DISTRICTNALBARI ASSAM
PIN-781371
7: TRISHNA MONI DAS
D/O ABANI KUMAR DAS R/O JOTI TOWN
NEAR B.T. COLLEGE BARPETA
P.O. SANTINAGAR DIST. BARPETA ASSAM
PIN-781314
8: DR.MONZURUL KADER AHMED
S/O AMZAD HUSSAIN AHMED
R/O VILL- AIRANJANGLA
P.O. A.M. CO. ROAD
DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM
PIN-783323
9: DR. KABITA BARUAH
D/O LATE RAJANI KANTA BARUAH R/O TOWN MORIKALONG DISTRICT
NAGAON
ASSAM
PIN-782001
10: MD. RUHUL AMIN
S/O MD. MAQBUL HUSSAIN VILL- AND P.O. JHASKAL DIST. DHUBRI
ASSAM PIN-783335
11: DR. LATIKA KALITA
D/O LATE DANDI RAM KALITA R/O VILL- 2 NO. HACHANG
P.O. MADHUKUCHI
P.S. RANGIA
DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM
PIN-781354
12: BIKRAM BARO
S/O GIRISH CH. BARO R/O VILL- MADHAPUR
P.O. RUPAHI DIST. BARPETA ASSAM
PIN-781318.
13: BISMEETA BURAGOHAIN
D/O HEMANTA BURAGOHAIN R/O VILL- HATIGARH
P.O. HATIGARH DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM
PIN-787057
14: SHEEMPE BARUAH
Page No.# 3/45
D/O KAMAL CHANDRA BARUAH
R/O VILL- PATALARCHUKP.O. JAMUGURIHAT DIST. SONITPUR ASSAM-
784180
15: JULIE DAS
D/O AKON CHANDRA DAS
R/O NRL TOWNSHIP
DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM
PIN-785615
16: RUMI TALUKDAR
D/O LATE UMESH TALUKDAR R/O HOUSE NO. 27 GARUKUCHI PATH
CHANDAN NAGAR CHARIALIBELTOLATINIALI
BELTOLA GUWAHATI
DIST. KAMRUP (M).
17: NEHA PRASAD
D/O DWIJENDRA PRASAD
R/OBHAKARVITA
WARD NO. 19
P.O. AND P.S. BONGAIGAON ASSAM.
18: MRS. JOYSHREE CHOUDHURY
D/O BRAJEN CHOUDHURY
R/O ARUNODOI PATH
HOUSE NO. 15
HATIGAON NAMGHAR GHY-38
19: SABIHA NAHID
D/O SAFIQUR RAHMAN R/O KARENGTINIALI
P.O. JOYSAGAR
DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM
PIN-785665
20: MD. AJMAL
S/O ABDUL QUADIR R/O VILL- HATIMURIA
P.O. AND P.S. MOIRABARI DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM
PIN-782126
21: SUBORNA HAQUE
D/O FAZRUL HAQUE SARKAR R/O WARD NO. 13
A.B. COLLEGE ROAD
BYELANE KARIM BOXO
P.O. GAURIPUR DHUBRI
PIN-783331.
Page No.# 4/45
22: KABERI SARMA THAKUR
D/O AKHILANANDA SHARMA THAKUR R/O CHANDMARI
OPPOSITE POLICE WIRELESS OFFICE WARD NO. 10
P.O. AND P.S. GOLAGHAT
PIN-785621
23: DR. PARAG GOGOI
S/O LATE PRADIP GOGOI R/O AMGURI
CHANGMAI VILLAGE
P.O. CHARINGIAPUKHURI DIST. SIVASAGAR
PIN- 785680
24: SUMIR BHATTARAI
S/O NAR BAHADUR BHATTARAI
R/O NARANGI
ASEB COLONY QTR. NO. TYPE-VI/01/02
P.O. NARANGI
P.S. NOONMATI
GUWAHATI-781026
25: DOLLY SARMAH
D/O BIRESWAR SARMAH CHITRANAGAR TOWN TANGLA
WARD NO. 4
P.O. TANGLA DIST. UDALGURI BTAD
ASSAM PIN-784521
26: DR.DURLOV SAIKIA
S/O GOLAP SAIKIA
R/O VILL- KHETRIATI
P.O. MAJUKUSHI
DIST. BISWANATH
PIN-784178
27: PREETI REKHA BORUAH
D/O NARAYAN CH. BARUAH R/O VILL- BORPATHARHATKATA KONWAR
GAON
P.O. KONWAR HANDIQUE DISTRICT DIBRUGARH
PIN- 786008
28: DR. MUHSINA KAFIAH HUDA
D/O WARIS ALI
R/O RAJABARIJYOTINAGAR PATH
DIST. JORHAT PIN- 782014
29: MITU DAS
D/O LATE TARUN CH. DAS
R/O VILL- GARIGAONNOWAPARA
P.O. GARIGAON
Page No.# 5/45
P.S. JALUKBARI DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM
PIN-781012
30: SANJANA DEVI
D/O PARESH PARAJULI R/O
VILL- GOLIA
P.O. PANIBHARAL
DIST. BISWANATH CHARIALI PIN-784176
31: MRIDUSMITA BORA
D/O JIBA KANTA BORA
R/O MISSION COMPOUND
WARD NO. 9
P.O. AND P.S. GOLAGHAT
DIST. GOLAGHAT ASSAM
PIN-785621
32: DR. LIMA DAS
D/O PRABIN CH. DAS
R/O VILL- NIZARAPUR
H. N. 64
OPPOSITE AEC HOSTEL NO. 6
P.O. GUWAHATI UNIVERSITY DIST. KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
PIN- 781014
33: DR. BHARATI DEKA
W/O TRINAYAN BARMAN
R/O BARKHETRIBANEKUCHI
DIST. NALBARI PIN- 781340
34: BEDANTA BARHOI
S/O BINANDABARHOI R/O SARJON
DIST. LAKHIMPUR PIN-784164
35: DR. PANKAJ HAZARIKA
S/O LILADHAR HAZARIKA
R/O R/O VILL- SINGIABHAKAT GAON
P.O. SINGIA NO. 2
DIST. LAKHIMPUR PIN- 78214
36: MRINAL KUMAR ADHIKARY
S/O BHUPENDRA NARAYAN ADHIKARY
RESIDENT OF KALI MANDIR PATH HOUSE NO. 1A
BEHARBARI PO BASISTHA
GUWAHATI DISTKAMRUP M ASSAM 781029
37: YESMIN ARA BEGUM
Page No.# 6/45
D/O BASISR ALI
R/O APGCLMAIBELLASUFFERY
DISTCHARAIDEO ASSAM
785689
38: BARBIE LEENA BARHOI
D/O DURLOVE LEENA BARHOI RESIDENT OF D.G AVENUE NEW
AMOLAPATTY
GOLAGHAT
ASSAM 785621
39: GAUTAM BORA
S/O LILA KANTA BORA RESIDENT OFHATIGAON
NEAR HATIGAON HIGH SCHOOL GUWAHATI 781038
ASSAM
40: BHASKAR MAHANTA
S/O SARAT MAHANTA BAKARIGAON RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 4
P.O.MORIGAON
DISTRICTMORIGAON ASSAM 782105
41: ANAMIKA TALUKDAR
D/O LAKSHMI KANTA TALUKDAR
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAPARKUCHI PO TERECHIA
P.S. NALBARI
ASSAM 781334
42: MRIGANAV DEBNATH
S/O ANIL CH. DEBNATH
RESIDENT OF AMOLAPATTY WARD NO. 4
P.O. MORIGAON
DISTMORIGAON
ASSAM 782105
43: KANGKANA DEORI
D/O HERAMBA DEORI
RESIDENT OF DPS ROAD
AAHOM GAON
NEAR KAZIRANGA ENGLISH ACADEMY
GAROGHULI
GARCHUK
KAMRUP (M)
ASSAM
44: GAYATRI ADHIKARY
D/O BHUPENDRA NARAYAN ADHIKARY RESIDENT OF NEAR AG COLONY
KALIMANDIR PATH
BYE LANE NO. 1 HOUSE NO. 1 A
Page No.# 7/45
BEHARBARI GUWAHATI 781029 ASSAM
45: MD. MOFIZUL ISLAM
S/O MD. HUSSAIN ALI
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHALBANDA POBARKANANDA PSBILASIPARA
DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 783348
46: ALAKESH SARMAH
S/O NABIN SARMAH
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KOTHORA P.O. JAMTOLA
RANGIA
DISTKAMRUP ASSAM 781354
47: ANKUR DAS
S/O BIRENDRA NATH DAS
RESIDENT OF CHANDANPUR WARD NO. 8
POBARPETA ROAD
DIST BARPETA
ASSAM 781335
48: RAJIB KALITA
S/O NARAYAN KALITA
RESIDENT OF KRISHNA NAGAR WARD NO. 2
P.O. AND DISTRICT NALBARI ASSAM 781335
49: KANKANA KASHYAP
W/O RABINDRA CHANDRA DAS
RESIDENT OF UTTARANANDANAGAR GANESH MANDIR PATH
NEW GUWAHATI PO NOONMATI GUWAHATI 781020 ASSAM
50: BHASKAR JYOTI PATHAK
S/O KHANINDRA NATH PATHAK
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE AND POCHENGA
PSTARABARI
DISTBARPETA
ASSAM 781305
51: RAHUL SWARGIARY
S/O HITESH SWARGIARY
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 12 GAONBURA PATH PATHARQUARY
GUWAHATI 781171
52: HELENA AHMED
D/O KABELUDDIN AHMED
RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 15 HOUSE NO. 223
P.O. SONKUCHI
DISTBARPETA ASSAM 781314
Page No.# 8/45
53: SNIGDHA DAS
D/O SANJOY DAS
RESIDENT OF CHANDMARIAEI ROAD LEFT BYE LANE . HOUSE NO. 16
GUWAHATI 3 ASSAM
54: PALLABI DAS
D/O PRAFULLA CHANDRA DAS
RESIDENT OF PUB SURUJNAGARKAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 781019
55: JUMILEE GOGOI
D/O NIREN GOGOI
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 13 SHIVA NATH GOGOI PATH PANJABARI
GUWAHATI 37 ASSAM
56: SABIHA RAIYESHA
D/O ATAUR RAHMAN
RESIDENT OF TR PHOOKAN ROAD MACHKHOWA
GUWAHATI 781009 ASSAM
57: NITISHA BORDOLOI
W/O DR GITARTHA BORDOLOI RESIDENT OF APARTMENT 2A HOUSE NO.
19
SHANKARDEV PATH PUB SARANIA ROAD
GUWAHATI ASSAM 781003
58: BIPASHA SARMA
D/O KHAGENDRA NATH DEV SARMA
RESIDENT OF THANA ROAD DHING TOWN
P.O. DHING
DIST NAGAON ASSAM 782123
59: MANASHI TALUKDAR
D/O GAJEN TALUKDAR
RESIDENT OF THAMNA PS MUSHALPUR
DISTRICT BAKSA
781377 ASSAM
60: DHRUBAJIT KALITA
S/O BANKIM KALITA RESIDENT OFKHARJARA PO GOPAL BAZAR
DISTNALBARI ASSAM 781353
61: SAURAV BHATTACHARJEE
S/O JYOTIRMOY BHATTACHARJEE
RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO. 1 LANE NO. 14 FRIST LINK ROAD DIST.
SILCHAR
ASSAM 788006
62: SANJIB BISWAS
Page No.# 9/45
S/O LOKESH BISWAS
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAMNAGAR (NO.2) PO AZARBARI PS LANKA
DIST. HOJAI ASSAM 782442
63: IMDADUL HUSSAIN
S/O AMZAD HUSSAIN RESIDENT OFBILASIPARA WARD NO. 4
SURJYAKHATA
PO BILASIPARADIST DHUBRI
ASSAM 783348 ASSAM
64: NILAKSHI KAKATI
D/O LATE BIREN KAKATI
R/O HOUSE NO. 3 UTTARAYAN PATH
SIX MILE
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI 781022
ASSA
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF
ASSAM, EDUCATION HIGHER DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI
2:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
HIGHER EDUCATION (TECHNICAL) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GHY- 6.
3:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM
EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6.
4:DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION ASSAM
DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM
5:ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
JAWAHAR NAGAR
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781022.
6:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY
ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
JAWAHAR NAGAR
KHANAPARA
GUWAHATI-22.
7:THE PRINCIPAL
DHEMAJI POLYTECHNIC
Page No.# 10/45
SILAPATHAR
SIMENCHAPORI
DIST-DHEMAJI
ASSAM
PIN- 787061
8:THE PRINCIPAL
GOLAGHAT POLYTECHNIC
FURKATING
DIST- GOLAGHAT
PIN-785610.
9:THE PRINCIPAL
SONITPUR POLYTECHNIC
DHEKIAJULI
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN-784110
10:THE PRINCIPAL
LAKHIMPUR POLYTECHNIC
BIHPURIA DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-784161
11:THE PRINCIPAL
GOAPLARA POLYTECHNIC
DIST- GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783101
12:THE PRINCIPAL
BAKSA POLYTECHNIC
BELGURIPATHAR
DIST- BAKSA (BTAD)
ASSAM
PIN-781377
13:THE PRINCIPAL
NALBARI POLYTECHNIC
DIST- NALBARI
ASSAM PIN-781335
14:THE PRINCIPAL
KAMRUP POLYTECHNIC
BAIHATA CHARIALI
DIST- KAMRUP (R)
ASSAM
PIN-781381
15:THE PRINCIPAL
BARPETA POLYTECHNIC
Page No.# 11/45
BARPETA TOWN
DIST BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN-781301
16:THE PRINCIPAL
SIVASAGAR POLYTECHNIC
DIMOW
DIST- SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
PIN-787059
17:TANMOY MEDHI
D/O- LATE BIRENKAKATI R/O- HOUSE NO. 3 UTTARAYAN PATH
SIXMILECHACHAL KHANAPARA GUWAHATI-781022
18:SIDDHARTHA KASHYAP
S/O LATE DILIP KUMAR MAZUMDAR R/O KRISHA NAGAR MIRZA
P.O. POLASHBARI DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM PIN 781125
19:MRINAL JYOTI SARMA
/O ABINASH SARMA R/O CHAMPAK NAGAR DISTRICT KAMRUP ASSAM
PIN 781124
20:MATIUR RAHMAN
S/O ABDUL LATIF AHMED R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. BHAIRARPAM
DISTRICT BARPETA ASSAM PIN 781308.
21:AKSHEE SHIVAM
D/O S.K. BOTHAKUR R/O SHIVANGI APARTMENT SHIVAMANDIR PATH
BAGHORBARI TINIALI PANJABARI GUWAHATI-37 ASSAM
22:PINAKI RANJAN SEAL
S/O PRADIP KUMAR SEAL R/O B2 SARASWATI NIWAS LOHRA ROAD LAL
GANESH GUWAHATI-781034 DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM
23:JAHIDUL ISLAM
S/O SOBAHAN ALI R/O VILLAGE NAYAPARA P.O. BAHATI DISTRICT
GOALPARA ASSAM
PIN 783125.
24:FRANKY KUMAR KALIA
S/O SRI NIRMAL KUMAR KALIA R/O LAL BANGLOW ROAD P.O. TINSUKIA
DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM
PIN 786125
25:PRANJAL KUMAR SARMA
S/O SRI SUREN CHANDRA SARMA R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. RANGAMATI
Page No.# 12/45
DIST. KAMRUP
ASSAM
781122
26:MUKUL KALITA
S/O LATE BALEN KALITA R/O VILLAGE NOTUN KOIMARI P.O.
CHHAYGAON DIST. KAMRUP ASSAM
PIN 781124
27:DIPANKAR SHARMA
S/O SASHADHAR SHARMA R/O VILLAGE NAKHARA (PAKA) P.O. TIHU
DISTRICT NALBARI ASSAM
PIN 781371
28:PAWAN KUMAR SINGH
S/O SHATRUGHAN SINGHA R/O H/ NO. 35
COLLEGE ROAD KUNDIL NAGAR BELTOLA GUWAHATI DISTRICT
KAMRUP(M)
ASSAM PIN 781029
29:IPSHITA BORAH
D/O TARUN CHANDRA BORAH R/O MANCOTTA CHOWKIDINGHEE DIST.
DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN 786001.
30:ANKURJYOTI TALUKDAR
S/O DIMBESWAR TALUKDAR R/O VILLAGE DALAIGAON P.O. BAMKHATA
DISTRICT BAJALI ASSAM
781325.
31:MANOJ KUMAR DEKA
S/O JOGENDRA NATH DEKA R/O NAKARI RAILWAY APPROACH ROAD
NEAR LAKHIMPUR RAILWAY STATION DIST LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
787001.
32:NEELIM KONWAR
S/O DULJIT KR. KONWAR R/O QUARTER NO. 3334 KALIBARI AREA
DIGBOI ASSAM
786171
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A KHANDAKAR, MR H MAZUMDER,MISS. J GOGOI,MR.
U S BORA,MR P J DUTTA,MR B P BORAH,MR. P K GOSWAMI
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, HIGHER EDU, SC, APSC
Page No.# 13/45
BEFORE
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Date of hearing : 14.02.2025
Date of Judgment & Order : 25.02.2025
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.)
Heard Mr. P. K. Goswami, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. J.
Goswami, learned counsel, and Mr. B. P. Borah, learned counsel, appearing
on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned standing
counsel, Higher Education Department; and Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned
senior counsel, assisted by Ms. P. Sarma, learned counsel; appearing on
behalf of their respective respondents.
2. The appellants, herein, by way of instituting the present intra-Court
appeal, have presented a challenge to a judgment & order, dated
28.01.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)8795/2019,
rejecting the claim of the appellants for having the contractual appointment
effected in their cases, regularized against the sanctioned posts so
available.
3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issues arising in the
present intra-Court appeal, is noticed, as under:
The Government on the establishment of 11(eleven) new Polytechnics
in the State and consequent creation of posts in such newly created
polytechnics; a decision was arrived at for filling up of the said posts,
Page No.# 14/45
including the posts of Lecturers so created, by way of engaging qualified
personnel as Guest/Part Time Faculty.
In view of the said decision so arrived at; the Director, Technical
Education, Assam, issued an advertisement, dated 24.12.2016, inviting
applications from candidates having the prescribed AICTE/UGC norms
adopted by the Government of Assam for engagement as Guest/Part Time
Faculty in the newly established 11(eleven) Polytechnics in the State, as
spelt-out therein.
The said recruitment was required to be so made by way of evaluating
the candidates through a walk-in-interview. The appellants, herein, being
eligible, had submitted their respective applications for being considered for
recruitment as Guest/Part-Time Faculty pursuant to the said advertisement,
dated 24.12.2016. On conclusion of the said recruitment process, a select
list was prepared and published vide Notice, dated 01.02.2017, by the
Director, Technical Education, Assam.
In pursuance of selection of the appellants, herein, they were issued
with individual engagement letters engaging them as Guest/Part-Time
Faculty against various Departments.
In terms of the said engagement letter, dated 06.02.2017, the
appellants, herein, were to report for joining in their respective institution
on 01.04.2017. The engagement so effected, was stipulated to be initially
for a period of 6 months from the date of reporting and may be renewed as
per the requirement of the Department. It was further stipulated that the
Page No.# 15/45
engagement so effected, shall not be claimed for regular appointment.
Thereafter, the Government in the Higher Education Department, vide
communication, dated 13.02.2017, conveyed its approval towards the
engagement of Guest/Part Time Faculty in 11(eleven) newly established
Polytechnics in the State from April, 2017, onwards, subject to the
following conditions:
"I. Appointment should be purely temporary basis till regular appointment of faculties
against created posts.
II. Salary/remuneration should be fixed pay only.
III. All the existing procedures, if any, should be strictly followed for appointment of the
guest/ part-time faculties."
The appellants, herein, have projected that in terms of the engagement
letters so issued to them, they had joined their respective services w.e.f.
01.04.2017. Pursuant to the joining of the appellants, herein, w.e.f.
01.04.2017, within a period of less than 2 months; on a requisition so
made by the Higher Education Department; the Assam Public Service
Commission(APSC) issued an advertisement, dated 25.05.2017, inviting
applications, amongst others, for filling up of 113 nos. of vacant posts of
Lecturers(Technical) and 86 nos. of vacant posts of Lecturers(Non-
Technical) in various Polytechnics of the State, including the posts so
created in the newly established Polytechnics of the State.
It is the projection of the appellants, herein, that the posts so
advertised includes the posts they were so recruited against in pursuance
of the advertisement, dated 24.12.2016. It is seen that in pursuance of the
representations so made by the appellants, herein, in the matter; the
Director, Higher Education Department, had written to the authorities of the
Assam Public Service Commission(APSC), for grant of weightage to the
Page No.# 16/45
Guest/Part Time Faculty like the appellants, herein, in the recruitment so
initiated vide the advertisement, dated 25.05.2017. However, it is
contended by the appellants that no such weightage so given to them.
The recruitment process was, thereafter, carried forward by the Assam
Public Service Commission(APSC) and Notifications came to be issued in
the matter, laying down the syllabus and thereafter, fixing dates for various
segments of the recruitment process.
The initial engagement of the appellants, herein, were being extended
from time to time and in the extension so granted in the matter, vide an
order, dated 24.09.2019; certain conditions came to be so incorporated in
the said order. In the order, dated 24.09.2019, while extending the
contractual engagement of the appellants, herein, the conditions so
incorporated, are extracted hereinbelow:
"1. The engagement is valid up to 31st December, 2019.
2. The monthly remuneration of the Guest/Part Time Faculties may be disbursed through
Treasury as online salary bill being @ Rs.400/- per hour in accordance to Govt. Notification
Νο TΕC.107/99/Pt-1/3 dated 01.02.2011.
3. The Guest/Part Time Faculties shall have to perform academic activities such as
preparation of the Lecture notes in PPT/PDF format, question papers, mentoring students
etc. as may be assigned by the Principal/Higher Authorities in addition to their regular
classroom activities.
4. Service of the Guest/Part Time Faculties may be terminated at any time without
assigning any reason there to, in case performance is found unsatisfactory or regular
faculty is appointed against the sanctioned post. The performance of the Guest/Part Time
Faculties may be monitored by a Performance Monitoring Committee.
5. Guest/Part Time Faculties shall avail holidays as applicable to the Institutes and may
avail casual leaves on prior permission of the concerned Principal, However, no special
Page No.# 17/45
leaves such as study Leave, Maternity Leave, Child Care Leave, Medical Leave and earn
leave etc. will be allowed.
6. The engagement is purely temporary and therefore doesn't confer him/her any right for
regularization against the permanent vacant posts. The Govt. will also have no liability for
his/her job continuity."
The appellants, herein, in view of the existence of a clause in the orders
extending their contractual appointment to the effect that their service was
permissible to be terminated at any point of time without assigning any
reasons thereto, and also being aggrieved by the advertisement, dated
25.05.2017, to the extent that the said advertisement also mandated a
recruitment against the posts to which they were also recruited by
following a due process of selection; approached the writ Court by way of
instituting a writ petition being WP(c)8795/2019. The learned Single Judge
while issuing notice in the said writ petition, noticing the submissions made
on behalf of the petitioners, therein, that if the posts so advertised vide the
advertisement, dated 25.05.2017, are filled up on regular basis; the said
writ petition would become virtually infructuous, was pleased, vide order,
dated 29.11.2019, in the interim, to direct that the services of the
petitioners, therein, may not be disturbed without special leave of this
Court.
The advertisement, dated 25.05.2017, was also put to challenge before
the writ Court by a set of petitioners by way of instituting a writ petition
being WP(c)2089/2020. The said writ petition was taken-up for
consideration by the learned Single Judge, and vide judgment & order,
dated 02.07.2024; the same was disposed of by the setting aside the
advertisement, dated 25.05.2017, insofar as it related to filling up of 113
posts of Lecturers(Technical) and 86 posts of Lecturers(Non-Technical) in
Page No.# 18/45
various Polytechnics of the State.
The learned Single Judge on interfering with the said advertisement,
dated 25.05.2017, to the extent noted above; was pleased to grant liberty
to the State Respondents for filling up of 113 posts of Lecturers(Technical)
and 86 posts of Lecturers(Non-Technical) in various Polytechnics of the
State in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Technical Education
Service Rules, 1981(as amended). In pursuance of the said judgment &
order, dated 02.07.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP(c)2089/2020; the State Respondents have issued a fresh
advertisement, dated 30.12.2024, which was also challenged by the
present appellants by instituting a writ petition being WP(c)157/2025
before the writ Court.
Upon the respondents filing their responses in the matter;
WP(c)8795/2019 along with WP(c)157/2025 and WP(c)159/2025 were
taken-up for final consideration by the learned Single Judge. On such
consideration being so made; the learned Single Judge was pleased vide
order, dated 28.01.2025, to reject the claim of the petitioners, therein
(appellants, herein), for a direction upon the respondent authorities for
regularization of their services. Accordingly, the said writ petition being
WP(c)8795/2019 along with WP(c)157/2025 and WP(c)159/2025, came to
be dismissed.
4. Being aggrieved, the appellants, herein, have instituted the present
intra-Court appeal before this Court.
Page No.# 19/45
5. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the appellants, herein, has
submitted that 11(eleven) new Polytechnics having been so established and
the posts being created therein, there being a need to receive AICTE
approval; the respondent authorities arrived at a decision to populate the
said posts with necessary staff and accordingly, it was decided that the
posts, in question, would be initially filled-up on contractual basis.
Accordingly, the advertisement, dated 24.12.2016, came to be issued
inviting applications for engagement as Guest/Part-Time Faculty from
candidates fulfilling the AICTE/UGC norms for the posts, involved. The
learned senior counsel has further contended that the appellants, herein,
who fulfilled the requisite AICTE/UGC norms, had submitted their
respective applications and after being so interviewed in a walk-in-interview
by a Board consisting of eminent personalities; a select list came to be so
published in the matter by the Director, Technical Education, including
therein, the names of the appellants, herein, against various Departments,
for which, they were so selected.
6. It was projected by Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel, that on such
selection being effected, the appellants, herein, were issued with
engagement orders, dated 06.02.2017, and such engagement as
Guest/Part-Time Faculty was against the posts so sanctioned in the
11(eleven) newly established Polytechnics in various Departments by the
Government vide the communication, dated 19.08.2009. Although the
appellants, herein, were in terms of the original decision only required to
work in the said Polytechnics for a period of 3 hours, it is the contention of
Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel, that the appellants, herein, were
required to discharge responsibilities similar to that required to be
discharged by regular lecturers in various Polytechnics of the State.
Page No.# 20/45
7. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel, by referring to the materials
available on record, has submitted that at the time of their joining in
service; the appellants, herein, were required by the respondent authorities
to submit their educational certificates with further stipulation that it would
not be permissible to the appellants, herein, to pursue employment in other
institutions and/or seek any other employment during their rendition of
duties as Guest/Part-Time Faculty in the 11(eleven) newly established
Polytechnics in the State, wherein, they were so engaged. The learned
senior counsel has projected that the appellants, herein, in view of the fact
that their educational certificates were being retained by the respondent
authorities, were not in a position to submit their applications in pursuance
of the advertisement, dated 25.05.2017. It was also projected that the
respondents had held-out assurances to the appellants, herein, that their
services on contractual basis would be extended from time to time and
would be, thereafter, regularized by way of absorption against the posts
against which they were so rendering their respective services.
8. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel, has further submitted that the
respondents in the Higher Education Department had also approached the
authorities of the Assam Public Service Commission(APSC) requesting for
grant of weightage for the services being rendered by them as Guest/Part-
Time Faculty in 11(eleven) newly established Polytechnics, in the
recruitment process being so held in pursuance of the issuance of the
advertisement, dated 25.05.2017. However, it is contended that in the
subsequent Notifications so issued by the Assam Public Service
Commission(APSC) pertaining to the mode of selection, in question; no
such weightage was extended to the appellants, herein. The learned senior
counsel has submitted that subsequent to the advertisement, dated
Page No.# 21/45
25.05.2017, and on creation of the Assam Engineering Service Recruitment
Board; the said Board had issued a fresh advertisement on 21.02.2023,
inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment against 80
nos. of vacant posts of Lecturers (Technical) and 57 nos. of vacant posts of
Lecturers(Non-Technical) existing in various Polytechnics of the State. The
learned senior counsel has further submitted that the some of the
appellants, herein, had participated in the said recruitment process so
initiated in pursuance of the advertisement, dated 21.02.2023, in view of
the fact that there was a stipulation made in the said advertisement that
the posts, in question, so advertised, were the posts which had become
vacant after 25.05.2017, and not advertised by the Assam Public Service
Commission(APSC) and which were free from any legal issues.
9. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel, has also submitted that the
prescription as made in the advertisement, dated 21.02.2023, would go to
reveal that the Government had recognized that there was a right accruing
in favour of the appellants, herein, in view of the procedure adopted for
their recruitment and subsequent engagement as Guest/Part-Time Faculty
in 11(eleven) newly established Polytechnics, which was contended by the
learned senior counsel for the appellants, herein, to be on substantive
basis.
10. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the appellants, herein, has
submitted that the Cabinet in its meeting held on 24.09.2024, on
consideration of a proposal for change of the nomenclature of the Part-Time
Faculty and Guest Faculty, engaged in various Polytechnics and Government
Engineering Colleges across the State of Assam, on contractual basis; had
Page No.# 22/45
decided that those faculties would be engaged on adhoc basis against the
sanctioned posts in accordance with the principles outlined in Regulation
3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation and Functions)
Regulation, 1951, as per the extant Rules as applicable for appointments in
Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics of the State. The
learned senior counsel has submitted that the decision of the Cabinet
towards engagement of persons like the appellants, herein, under
Regulation 3(f) of the said Regulation of 1951; demonstrates that the
respondent authorities had appreciated the fact that the appellants, herein,
were discharging duties similar in nature to that required to be discharged
by regular incumbents in the posts, in question, and accordingly, in the
event, the appellants, herein, were so engaged under Regulation 3(f) of the
said Regulation of 1951; the services of the appellants, herein, in terms of
the practice so followed, would be liable to be subsequently regularized.
11. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel, has submitted that in terms of
the AICTE guidelines holding the field; the institution to which the AICTE
norms are applicable, are required to recruit regular faculty for all the
programmes/courses as provided in the institution and to maintain the
faculty/student ratio accordingly. The learned senior counsel has further
submitted that however, the said guidelines provided that contractual
faculty would be permissible to be so engaged under extraordinary
circumstances, like situations wherein, Court cases are pending and that
too, for a short duration. The learned senior counsel has also submitted
that on engagement of the appellants, herein, as Guest/Part Time Faculty,
they were so projected before the AICTE authorities towards satisfaction of
the faculty/student ratio and for obtaining the necessary approval for
operationalization of 11(eleven) newly established Polytechnics in the
Page No.# 23/45
State.
12. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel, has further submitted that the
appellants, herein, having been so recruited through a process of selection
which mirrors the selection procedure so required to be carried-out by the
Assam Public Service Commission(APSC) authorities; their engagement
being so effected on selection against regular sanctioned vacant posts, the
appellants, herein, are to be deemed to have been so appointed on
substantive basis. The learned senior counsel, has, therefore, submitted
that the substantive nature of the appointment of the appellants, herein, is
further revealed from the nature of duties which they were required to
perform on their such engagement in the newly established Polytechnics in
the State, in-as-much as, they were not discharging their duties for limited
period of time, but, were required to discharge their duties like that of
regular Lecturers/Assistant Professors.
13. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel, has submitted that given the
manner in which the appellants, herein, were recruited as well as the
period they have now served against regular vacant sanctioned posts in the
institutions to which they were so engaged; the services of the appellants,
herein, are required to be so absorbed against the vacant posts involved
with effect from the dates of their initial engagement.
14. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel, in support of his submissions,
has relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(i). Jaggo v. Union of India & ors., reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826,
(ii). Vinod Kumar v. Union of India, reported in (2024) 9 SCC 327,
Page No.# 24/45
(iii). G. Kulanchiyappan v. Vice Chancellor, Indian Maritime University ECR
Road & anr., reported in 2024 SCC Online Mad. 6134,
(iv). Union of India represented by Government of Puducherry & anr. v.
K. Velajagan & ors.,[order, dated 04.02.2025, in SLP(c) Nos.
2868/2018], and
(v). State of Punjab & ors. v. Jagjit Singh & ors. , reported in (2017) 1
SCC 148
15. In the above premises, Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the
appellants, herein, has submitted that this Court would be pleased to
interfere with the judgment & order, dated 07.02.2025, passed by the
learned Single Judge in WP(c)8073/2019, and direct the respondent
authorities to regularize the engagement of the appellants, herein, as
Guest/Part-Time Faculty in 11(eleven) newly established Polytechnics in the
State by holding that their initial recruitment being so made by way of a
due process of selection; the same be treated to be a regular selection for
the purpose and they be held to be regular entrants to the cadre.
16. Per contra, Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Higher Education
Department, has submitted that the recruitment to the various posts
existing in the 11(eleven) newly established Polytechnics of the State, is
governed by the provisions of the "Assam Technical Education Service
Rules, 1981". The learned standing counsel has further submitted that in
terms of the provisions of the Rules of 1981, the direct recruitment to the
posts so covered by the said Rules of 1981, was to be made by the Assam
Public Service Commission(APSC), till the year 2021. The learned standing
counsel has also submitted that in view of the need so existing for
conducting courses in 11(eleven) newly created Polytechnics, on its
establishment; the Government had decided to initially man the posts so
Page No.# 25/45
created by way of recruiting incumbents against such posts, as Guest/Part-
Time Faculty. The learned standing counsel has submitted that the
Government while granting approval for engagement of Guest/Part-Time
Faculty in 11(eleven) newly established Polytechnics, had vide
communication, dated 13.02.2017, clearly stipulated that the appointments
so effected, would be purely temporary till regular appointment of faculty is
so effected against the created posts.
17. Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Higher Education Department,
has submitted that the engagement orders issued to the appellants, herein,
also mandated that the same would not be permitted to be claimed by
them, for regular appointment. The learned standing counsel has further
submitted that engagement of the Guest/Part-Time Faculty in 11(eleven)
newly established Polytechnics, was so made, by clearly stipulating the
same from the initial stage. The learned standing counsel has also
submitted that even in the advertisement, in question, it was stipulated
that the applications were being invited thereby only for recruitment as
Guest/Part-Time Faculty. Accordingly, Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel,
Higher Education Department, by referring to the contentions so raised by
the appellants, herein, has submitted that it was also understood by the
appellants that they were being recruited only as Guest/Part-Time Faculty
in 11(eleven) newly established Polytechnics.
18. By referring to the submissions made by Mr. Goswami, learned senior
counsel, that the educational certificates of the appellants, herein, were
retained by the respondents, and accordingly, they were not in a position to
participate in the recruitment process so initiated vide the advertisement,
Page No.# 26/45
dated 25.05.2017, Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Higher Education
Department, has clarified that the certificates were so required to be
submitted by the appellants only for the purpose of verification of the same
and after completion of the verification process, the educational certificates
were returned to the appellants, herein. Mr. Gogoi, has submitted that the
contention of the appellants, herein, that the educational certificates were
so retained by the respondents; would also not merit an acceptance from
the fact that some of the appellants, herein, had participated in the
recruitment process so initiated vide the advertisement, dated 21.02.2023.
However, those appellants were not successful therein.
19. Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Higher Education Department,
has submitted, in pursuance of the interference made by the learned Single
Judge vide order, dated 02.07.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP(c)2089/2020; with the advertisement, dated 25.05.2017, insofar as it
relates to the filling up of 113 nos. of vacant posts of Lecturers(Technical)
and 86 nos. of vacant posts of Lecturers(Non-Technical) in various
Polytechnics of the State; the respondents have issued a fresh
advertisement for recruitment against the said posts vide the
advertisement, dated 30.12.2024, and the process, thereunder, is presently
underway.
20. Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Higher Education Department,
has further submitted that the decision of the learned Single Judge in
WP(c)2089/2020 has not been put to challenge and accordingly, the said
decision having granted to the State Respondents, liberty, to institute a
fresh recruitment process for the posts involved and the State Respondents
Page No.# 27/45
acting on the said liberty; having issued the advertisement, dated
30.12.2024, the posts of the appellants, herein, being also a part of the
said recruitment process, the appellants, herein, cannot be permitted to
claim as on date that their services be also regularized against the posts
which formed a part of the advertisement, dated 25.05.2017, and which
now forms a part of the advertisement, dated 30.12.2024.
21. Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Higher Education Department,
has further submitted that the appellants, herein, had been so engaged on
contractual basis as Guest/Part-Time Faculty with effect from the month of
April, 2017. However, the Assam Public Service Commission(APSC) had
immediately, thereafter, basing on a requisition so made in this connection
by the Higher Education Department, issued an advertisement for
recruitment including, therein, the posts of Lecturers(Technical) and
Lecturers(Non-Technical) created in various newly established Polytechnics
of the State including the posts so held by the appellants, herein. In view
of the above position, Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Higher
Education Department, has submitted that it is not a case wherein the
appellants, herein, had continued in their services for a long time without a
process of direct recruitment against the posts held by the appellants,
herein, on contractual basis, being not initiated by the recruiting agency.
22. Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Higher Education Department, in
support of his submissions, has placed reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar &
ors. v. State of Maharashtra & ors., reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1417.
The learned standing counsel by further placing reliance on the decision of
Page No.# 28/45
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Uma
Devi(3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1, and in the case of State of Karnataka
& ors. v. M. L. Kesari & ors. , reported in (2010) 9 SCC 247, has submitted
that the appellants, herein, do not fulfill the requisite eligibility criteria for
availing the exemptions so granted for regularization of irregular
appointees, in-as-much as, the continuation of the appellants, herein, was
in terms of the interim directions passed by the learned Single Judge, vide
order, dated 29.11.2019, in WP(c)8795/2019. Further, the appellants,
herein, have also not completed 10 years of service on the date when they
had instituted the WP(c)8795/2019. Accordingly, the learned standing
counsel has submitted that the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
rendered in the case of Uma Devi(3) [supra] and M. L. Kesari(supra);
would not be applicable to the case of the appellants, herein.
23. In the above premises, Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Higher
Education Department, has submitted that the learned Single Judge on
consideration of all the relevant aspects of the matter, having concluded
that the appellants are not entitled for a direction for regularization of their
services by way of absorption; the said conclusion and the judgment &
order, dated 07.02.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in
WP(c)8073/2019, would not call for any interference by this Court.
24. We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and
also perused the materials available on record.
25. On the establishment of 11(eleven) new Polytechnics in the State and
the Government creating posts for operationalization of the said
Page No.# 29/45
Polytechnics; a decision was arrived at by the respondent authorities to
carry-out a process of recruitment against the posts so created by way of
engaging against the posts of Lecturers so created, persons, as Guest/Part
Time Faculty. Accordingly, an advertisement was issued on 25.12.2016,
with the projection made therein that the engagement so being made, is of
Guest/Part Time Faculty.
26. The appellants, herein, had submitted their respective applications in
pursuance of the said advertisement, dated 25.12.2016, by understanding
the fact that the engagement so being made, is made on Guest/Part Time
Faculty and not on regular basis. Thereafter, by way of following a process
of selection; a select list being prepared and the names of the appellants,
being so included therein, they were issued with an engagement order on
06.02.2017, engaging them against the posts sanctioned in their respective
Departments as Guest/Part Time Faculty. The engagement of the
appellants, herein, was initially so made for a period of 6 months with the
stipulation that it would be renewed as per the requirement of the
Department. However, it was specified that the engagement shall not be
claimed for regular appointment. The said engagement was to come into
effect w.e.f. 01.04.2017. The Government, thereafter, conveyed its
approval to the engagement of Guest/Part Time Faculty in 11(eleven) newly
established Polytechnics, vide a communication, dated 13.02.2017, and
therein, stipulated that the appointment so made is on temporary basis till
regular appointment of faculties is so made against the posts so created.
The appellants, herein, with open eyes, had accepted the terms and
conditions of their such engagement and joined their respective services as
Guest/Part Time Faculty.
Page No.# 30/45
27. The Higher Education Department, thereafter, issued a requisition to
the Assam Public Service Commission(APSC) for recruitment against 113
nos. of vacant posts of Lecturers (Technical) and 86 nos. of vacant posts of
Lecturers(Non-Technical) existing in various Polytechnics of the State,
including the posts so held by the appellants, herein. After initiation of the
said recruitment process by the Assam Public Service Commission(APSC);
the Higher Education Department had also written to the authorities of the
Assam Public Service Commission(APSC) for grant of weightage to the
persons engaged as Guest/Part Time Faculty in 11(eleven) newly
established Polytechnics, in the recruitment process so initiated vide the
advertisement, dated 25.05.2017. The said step taken by the authorities of
the Higher Education Department reveals that the Government had not
construed the engagement of the appellants to have been so made on
substantive basis. However, as contended by the appellants, herein, in the
subsequent Notifications issued by the Assam Public Service Commission
(APSC) towards laying down the manner and method for carrying-out a
recruitment process in pursuance of the said advertisement, dated
25.05.2017, and of the various stages of the recruitment process; no
weightage was so given to the persons so engaged as Guest/Part Time
Faculty in 11(eleven) newly established Polytechnics.
28. Being aggrieved; the appellants, herein, had instituted
WP(c)8795/2019, before the writ Court and this Court, while issuing notice
in the matter, vide order, dated 29.11.2019, was pleased to pass an interim
direction to the effect that the services of the appellants, herein, be not
disturbed without special leave of this Court. The appellants, accordingly,
continued in their respective services under the cover of the said interim
directions passed by the writ Court vide order, dated 29.11.2019, in
Page No.# 31/45
WP(c)8795/2019.
29. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants,
herein, has submitted that in view of the fact that the appellants were
required to submit their educational qualification certificates prior to joining
their respective engagements so effected in their cases w.e.f. 01.04.2017,
as Guest/Part Time Faculty in 11(eleven) newly established Polytechnics,
and further, the undertaking so made by them in the matter to the effect
that they would not, during the period of engagement in the said
Polytechnics, also work in other institutions and/or seek for better avenues
of employment, were not in a position to submit their respective
applications in pursuance of the said advertisement, dated 25.05.2017.
30. The above contention of Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel, was,
however, disputed by Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Higher Education
Department, and it was contended that the educational qualification
certificates of the appellants, herein, were so required to be submitted for
the purpose of verification and on completion of such verification, the
educational certificates were returned to the appellants, herein.
31. The recruitment process, as initiated, vide the advertisement, dated
25.05.2017, insofar as it relates to the recruitment of faculties of the newly
established Polytechnics of the State, was assailed by a set of petitioners
by way of instituting before the writ Court, a writ petition being
WP(c)2089/2020. The learned Single Judge vide judgment & order, dated
02.07.2024, was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition by setting
aside the advertisement, dated 25.05.2017, insofar as it pertains to filling
Page No.# 32/45
up of 113 nos. of vacant posts of Lecturers(Technical) and 86 nos. of
vacant posts of Lecturers(Non-Technical) in various Polytechnics of the
State. However, liberty was granted to the State Respondents to take
appropriate steps to fill-up the said posts, in question, in accordance with
the amended provisions of the Assam Technical Education Service Rules,
1981(as amended). The State Respondents in terms of the liberty granted
by the learned Single Judge vide judgment & order, dated 02.07.2024, in
WP(c)2089/2020; have issued a fresh advertisement, dated 30.12.2024,
for recruitment to the posts so involved which include the posts held by the
appellants, herein.
32. The decision of the learned Single Judge as rendered in the
proceeding of WP(c)2089/2020, has not been assailed and the same has
since attained its finality. The posts so forming a part of the advertisement,
dated 25.05.2017, having been projected to also include the posts held by
the appellants, herein, the same very posts being now put to recruitment
vide the advertisement, dated 30.12.2024, the learned Single Judge on a
challenge being presented to the advertisement, dated 30.12.2024, having
rejected the same; the appellants, herein, cannot claim for absorption
against the said posts, in-as-much as, the recruitment, thereof, is
underway in terms of the directions passed by the learned Single Judge
vide judgment & order, dated 02.07.2024, in WP(c)2089/2020.
33. At this stage, it is to be noted that the service conditions of persons
engaged in the Polytechnics of the State, is governed by the provisions of
the Assam Technical Education Service Rules, 1981. In terms of the
provisions of Section 11 of the said Rules of 1981, the selection for
Page No.# 33/45
recruitment against the post of Faculty, is to be so made by the Assam
Public Service Commission (APSC).
34. The respondent authorities, thereafter, created the Assam Engineering
Service Recruitment Board and the recruitment of the Faculty in various
Polytechnics of the State, was brought within the purview of the said
Board. Accordingly, the said Board on 21.02.2023, issued an advertisement
for carrying-out a process of recruitment of Lecturers(Technical) and
Lecturers(Non-Technical) in various Polytechnics of the State. The
appellants, herein, contend that they had participated in the said
recruitment process so held, in-as-much as, the posts so advertised in
terms of the provisions of Clause 2 of the said advertisement, dated
21.02.2023, was specified to be the posts which had become vacant after
25.05.2017, and not advertised by the Assam Public Service
Commission(APSC) and free from any legal issues. However, it is stated at
the Bar that the appellants, herein, did not come-out successful in the said
recruitment process so carried-out in pursuance of the advertisement,
dated 21.02.2023.
35. Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel, by projecting that the
appellants, herein, having been so recruited in pursuance of a selection
undertaken by the respondent Department, wherein, in addition to
reckoning the marks secured by the appellants in their qualifying
educational course; they were also subjected to an oral interview
conducted by a selection committee consisting of eminent personalities,
has contended that in view of the fact that the appellants, herein, had been
so recruited in pursuance of a recruitment process, which process mirrored,
Page No.# 34/45
the recruitment process so required to be carried-out in the matter by the
authorities of the Assam Public Service Commission(APSC) and their such
engagement being against sanctioned posts; it has to be construed that the
engagement of the appellants, herein, was so effected by the respondent
Department on substantive basis. It was further projected that the
appellants, herein, on their engagement as Guest/Part Time Faculty, were
projected before the AICTE authorities for receiving the necessary approval
for operationalization of 11(eleven) newly established Polytechnics. It was,
accordingly, submitted by Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel, that the
respondents ought not to have placed a requisition before the Assam Public
Service Commission(APSC) for the same very posts against which they
were so recruited in the said Polytechnics. It was further submitted that the
recruitment of the appellants, herein, as Guest/Part Time Faculty in the
11(eleven) newly established Polytechnics, was not an illegal one. However,
it was contended that the same may be denoted to be an irregular one.
36. The above contention of Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the
appellants, herein, has to be examined from the point of view of the
disclosure made in the advertisement, dated 25.12.2016, wherein, it was
projected that the said recruitment process was only for the purpose of
recruiting candidates as Guest/Part Time Faculty in 11(eleven) newly
established Polytechnics. The same being the projection; it cannot be ruled-
out that many candidates who would have been otherwise qualified for
offering their candidature for recruitment as Lecturers(Technical) and
Lecturers(Non-Technical) against the posts so created in 11(eleven) newly
established Polytechnics; may have not submitted their respective
applications given the fact that such recruitment was only, a stop-gap
arrangement.
Page No.# 35/45
37. In the case on hand, further, it has to be noted that after the
engagement of the appellants, herein, as Guest/Part Time Faculty, w.e.f.
01.04.2017, in 11(eleven) newly established Polytechnics; the recruiting
authority, had, within a period of about 2(two) months, thereafter, issued
the advertisement, dated 25.05.2017, inviting applications for filling-up of
posts including the posts of Lecturers(Technical) and Lecturers(Non-
Technical) existing in various Polytechnics of the State, including the posts
so created in the Polytechnics in which, the appellants, herein, were so
engaged. Accordingly, in the case on hand, it cannot be said that there was
no existence of any Rules governing the recruitment to the posts of
Lecturers(Technical) and Lecturers(Non-Technical) created in various
Polytechnics of the State, and/or that the recruiting authority had caused
prolonged delay in issuing advertisement for effecting recruitment on
regular basis against the posts so created in the 11(eleven) newly
established Polytechnics.
38. The services of the appellants, herein, in 11(eleven) newly
established Polytechnics, before being so protected by the interim order
passed by the writ Court in the proceeding of WP(c)8795/2019, was, for a
period of around 2 years or less. Further, the materials brought on record
does not disclose that the appellants, herein, were, in any manner,
prevented from submitting their respective applications in pursuance of the
advertisement, dated 25.05.2017, and the feeble plea so raised in the
hearing by Mr. Goswami, of the appellants, herein, being so prevented on
account of the educational certificates being retained by the departmental
authorities, was categorically denied by the respondents, herein.
Page No.# 36/45
39. The delay in conclusion of the recruitment process in pursuance of the
advertisement, dated 25.05.2017, was on account of the proceedings
instituted before the writ Court in the proceeding of WP(c)2089/2020. The
learned Single Judge vide the judgment & order, dated 02.07.2024, having
disposed of the writ petition being WP(c)2089/2020, by interfering with the
advertisement, dated 25.05.2017, with liberty to the State Respondents to
take appropriate steps for filling up of the posts of Lecturers(Technical) and
Lecturers(Non-Technical) so available in various Polytechnics of the State;
the State having issued the advertisement, dated 30.12.2024, the delay so
occasioning in the recruitment process is justified. The delay so occasioning
in the facts and circumstances as existing in the case, cannot be held to
vest upon the appellants, herein, a right to claim for regularization of their
contractual engagement, against the posts which they were so engaged.
40. It is to be noted that the directions passed by this Court vide
judgment & order, dated, dated 02.07.2024, in WP(c)2089/2020, in the
absence of a challenge being presented to it, has attained its finality.
41. In the above backdrop of the said developments taking place in the
matter after the institution of the writ petition being WP(c)8795/2019, by
the appellants, herein; it is to be noted that the appellants only on account
of being so recruited as Guest/Part Time Faculty, cannot present a claim for
being absorbed against the said posts by virtue of their such selection
which was nothing but a stop-gap arrangement for filling up of the posts of
Faculty as created in 11(eleven) newly established Polytechnics, pending a
regular selection which is now underway in pursuance of the
advertisement, dated 30.12.2024.
Page No.# 37/45
42. Further, the claim of the appellants, herein, for being regularized
against the posts, for which, they were so engaged as Guest/Part Time
Faculty in 11(eleven) newly established Polytechnics; would also not merit
acceptance, in-as-much as, such a recruitment as noticed hereinabove, was
only as a stop-gap arrangement till the posts are so put up for regular
recruitment. The projection as made by the appellants, herein, that they
were being assured by the respondent authorities that their cases would be
considered for absorption/regularization against the posts held by them;
would also not merit acceptance, in-as-much as, no material in this
connection, has been brought on record by the appellants, herein. Further,
the materials that are available on record, would go to demonstrate that
the respondents had taken a decision to provide for weightage to the
services so rendered by the appellants, herein, as Guest/Part Time Faculty
in 11(eleven) newly established Polytechnics, in the recruitment process as
held in pursuance of the advertisement, dated 25.05.2017. The said step
taken by the authorities would demonstrate that the authorities in the
Higher Education Department, had never construed the engagement so
made in the case of the appellants, herein, to have been so made on
substantive basis. Further, it is seen that there was a move on the part of
the respondent authorities to engage the appellants, herein, on adhoc
basis, by following the provisions of Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public
Service Commission (Limitation and Functions) Regulation, 1951, which
again was not for the purpose of the regularization of their services but
was, with a view to provide better emoluments.
43. The contention of Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the
appellants, that it is not permissible under the norms laid down by AICTE to
continue with contractual engagements for long, is being considered, only
Page No.# 38/45
to be rejected, in-as-much as, in the event, there occasions any infraction
of the AICTE norms; it is upto the AICTE authorities to take appropriate
steps, but, the continuance of the appellants, herein, as Guest/Part Time
Faculty, in the facts and circumstances involved in the present matter,
would not clothe them with any right to claim that on account of their such
service being continued, they are entitled to be absorbed against the posts,
involved.
44. Having noticed the above position; the decisions as relied upon by Mr.
Goswami, learned senior counsel, is being noticed.
45. The reliance placed by Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel, in the
case of Jaggo(supra), would also not advance the case of the appellants,
herein, in-as-much as, the facts involved in the said case is clearly
distinguishable from the facts involved in the present proceeding. The
employees involved in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Jaggo(supra), were engaged on part-time/adhoc basis since long as
Safaiwalas and were primarily responsible for cleaning the office premises
of the Central Water Commission. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on noticing
that the employees involved, therein, had rendered long and uninterrupted
service for the periods extending well beyond 10 years, it was held that
their cases cannot be brushed aside merely by labelling their initial
appointment as part-time or casual. Basing on the said premises, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had proceeded to direct for regularization of their
respective service. The cases of the appellants, herein, are clearly
distinguishable from that of the employees involved in the decision of
Jaggo(supra), in-as-much as, in reality; the appellants, herein, can be said
Page No.# 39/45
to have rendered their service for a period of around 2 months after their
engagement as Guest/Part Time Faculty in various Polytechnics of the
State, before the recruiting authority had issued advertisements for
effecting recruitment against the posts of Lecturers(Technical) and
Lecturers(Non-Technical), including the posts so held by the appellants,
herein. Further, the appellants, herein, had approached the writ Court by
way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)8795/2019 within a period of 2
years from their such engagement and thereafter, had continued in their
respective service basing on the protection granted by the writ Court in the
proceeding of WP(c)8795/2019.
46. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Vinod
Kumar(supra), had noticed the distinctive characteristics of the services
rendered by the appellants, therein. The said characteristics was noted by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the said judgment, as under:
"4. The appellants have approached this Court arguing that the High Court erred in
its judgment by failing to recognise the substantive nature of their duties, which align
with regular employment rather than the temporary or scheme-based roles they were
originally appointed for. Furthermore, their promotion by a regularly constituted
Departmental Promotional Committee, the selection process they underwent, and the
continuous nature of their service for over a quarter of a century underscored their
argument for regularisation and that the High Court has incorrectly applied the
principles from the case of Umadevi (3)² to their situation.
5. Having heard the arguments of both the sides, this Court believes that the essence
of employment and the rights thereof cannot be merely determined by the initial terms
of appointment when the actual course of employment has evolved significantly over
time. The continuous service of the appellants in the capacities of regular employees,
performing duties indistinguishable from those in permanent posts, and their
selection through a process that mirrors that of regular recruitment, constitute a
substantive departure from the temporary and scheme-specific nature of their initial
engagement. Moreover, the appellants' promotion process was conducted and overseen
by a Departmental Promotional Committee and their sustained service for more than
25 years without any indication of the temporary nature of their roles being
reaffirmed or the duration of such temporary engagement being specified, merits a
reconsideration of their employment status."
Page No.# 40/45
47. Having noticed the distinctive characteristics of the services rendered
by the appellants, therein; the Hon'ble Supreme Court had proceeded to
uphold their claim for regularization of their services and passed directions,
in this connection. The facts so involved in the present case, is clearly
distinguishable from the facts involved in the case of Vinod
Kumar(supra).The appellants, herein, had not rendered services for 10
years and further, in pursuance of the order, dated 04.11.2019, passed in
WP(C)8073/2019; they had been continuing in their services under
protection of the interim directions so passed in their favour. Further, the
recruiting authority proximate to the engagement of the appellants, herein,
as Guest/Part-Time Faculty in the Polytechnics, in question; had issued
advertisement for initiation of a process for appointment on regular basis
against the posts held by the appellants. Accordingly, we are of the
considered view that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Vinod Kumar(supra), would not advance the case of the appellants,
herein.
48. The Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in the case of G.
Kulanchiyappan(supra), on noticing that the appellant, therein, was
recruited pursuant to a due process of selection and on the date of
selection of the appellant; there was no Recruitment Rules governing the
manner of recruitment to the post involved; proceeded to hold that in
absence of a Recruitment Rules, it was open for the authorities to evolve a
proper methodology for recruitment. Basing on the said conclusion, the
High Court of Madras, proceeded to direct for regularization of the service
of the appellant, therein. Given the facts involved in the present
proceedings, as noticed hereinabove; the facts involved in the case of G.
Kulanchiyappan(supra) is clearly distinguishable and in our considered
Page No.# 41/45
view, the decision would not advance the case of the appellants, herein.
49. The reliance placed by Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel, on the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Velajagan & ors.
(supra), is now being considered. A perusal of the said decision, would go
to reveal that at the time of engagement of the employees involved,
therein, on adhoc basis, there was no Rules framed for the purpose of
recruitment to the posts existing in the institution concerned. The said Rule
had come after the recruitment of the employees involved, therein, had
occasioned. The said aspect of the matter was duly noticed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court and by reckoning the said position and also, the earlier
directions passed by the High Court of Judicature of Madras for
regularization of the employees so engaged on adhoc basis against the
posts of Lecturers in the institution involved; the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had proceeded to direct for the regularization of the services of the said
employees before it.
50. In the case on hand, the recruitment to the posts of
Lecturers(Technical) and Lecturers(Non-Technical) in various Polytechnics of
the State, is governed by the Assam Technical Education Service Rules,
1981, and further, after the engagement of the appellants, herein, it is seen
that the recruiting authority without further delay, had advertised the said
posts vide the advertisement, dated 25.05.2017, as well as the said
recruiting authority had issued a further advertisement in the year 2023 for
the purpose of effecting recruitment against similar posts. Accordingly, the
facts involved in the present case being distinguishable, we are of the
considered view that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
Page No.# 42/45
of K. Velajagan(supra), would not advance the case of the appellants,
herein.
51. Having drawn the above conclusions with regard to the case laws
cited by Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel for the appellants, herein; the
case laws as cited by Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Higher Education
Department, is now being examined.
52. Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Higher Education Department,
has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Uma Devi(3)[supra] and it was contended that the benefit of the
exception as provided in paragraph No. 53 of the said decision; would not
be attracted in the case of the appellants, herein, in-as-much as, they have
not fulfilled the pre-condition of having discharged continuous service
against a sanctioned post for a period of 10 years without the benefit of
any interim protection granted by any Court or Tribunal.
53. Mr. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Higher Education Department,
has, thereafter, placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court rendered in the case of Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar(supra). A
perusal of the decision would go to reveal that the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the said decision after noticing its decision in the case of Sheo Narain
Nagar & ors. v. State of U.P. & ors. , reported in (2018) 13 SCC 432, had
drawn the following conclusions:
"3. The issue with which we are concerned in this petition is as to whether by working for
a long period of time on contractual basis, the petitioners have acquired any vested legal
right to be appointed in the respective posts on regular basis.
Page No.# 43/45
4. We appreciate the argument of the petitioners that they have given best part of their life
for the said college but so far as law is concerned, we do not find their continuous working
has created any legal right in their favour to be absorbed. In the event there was any
scheme for such regularization, they could have availed of such scheme but in this case,
there seems to be none. We are also apprised that some of the petitioners have applied for
appointment through the current recruitment process. The High Court has rejected their
claim mainly on the ground that they have no right to seek regularization of their service.
We do not think any different view can be taken."
54. The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesh Digamber
Jambhrunkar(supra), in our considered view, applies with all force to the
facts involved in the present proceeding. Accordingly, it has to be concluded
that the appellants, herein, only by way of having rendered services as
Guest/Part Time Faculty, for a period of less than 10 years and that too,
under the protection of the orders of the writ Court and also on account of
the fact that the regular recruitment process so initiated on account of
pendency of proceedings pending before the writ Court, could not be taken
to its logical conclusion; cannot claim to have been vested with any legal
right for being absorbed/regularized against the posts they were so
engaged as Guest/Part Time Faculty in 11(eleven) newly established
Polytechnics.
55. Having drawn the above conclusions; we would now proceed to
examine the judgment & order, dated 28.01.2025, passed by the learned
Single Judge in WP(c)8795/2019. The learned Single Judge after noticing
the facts as well as the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the parties to the proceeding and also recording a finding to
the effect that the appellants, herein, in pursuance of the issuance of the
advertisement, dated 25.05.2017, had not participated in the recruitment
process and had put the same to challenge in the proceedings of
WP(c)8795/2019; proceeded to draw the following conclusions:
Page No.# 44/45
"19. In the present case the petitioners had taken part in the selection process
pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.12.2016, for engagement of Guest/Part Time
Lecturers. The advertisement and the selection process was to have been conducted by
the APSC as per the 1981 Rules. However, the same was not done by the APSC and it
was done by the Director, Higher Education Department. Thus, the selection of the
petitioners was done de hors the Rules. The petitioners were thereafter selected for
appointment as Guest/Part Time Lectures and permission for engaging them was
made to the State Government, which was given by the State Government with certain
conditions. The permission for engaging the petitioners clearly reflected the fact that
the petitioners appointments would be temporary till regular appointments were
made. The salary would be fixed pay. The appointment letters issued to the
petitioners also clearly stated that their engagement would be for 6 months and they
could not make a claim for regular appointment. Knowing fully well the conditions of
their engagement, the petitioners were appointed In February, 2017. Even before 6
months had elapsed and during the subsistence of their engagement period,
advertisement dated 25.05.2017 was issue for making regular appointments to the
posts of Lecturer (Technical) & (Non Technical). Instead of the petitioners submitting
their applications for taking part in the selection process for filling up the posts of
Lecturer (Technical) & (Non Technical) on regular basis, the advertisement dated
25.05.2017 was put to challenge by the petitioners, vide WP(C) 8795/2019, with a
further prayer that their services should be regularised. This Court gave protection to
the petitioners, by directing the respondents not to disturb the services of the
petitioners without the leave of the Court, vide interim order dated 29.11.2018 passed
in WP(C) 8795/2019. As can be seen from the above facts, the petitioners' case for
regularization does not come within the conditions laid down by the Supreme Court in
Umadevi (3) (supra) and M.L. Kesari (supra), wherein an employee could be considered
for regularisation, if he had worked for 10 years or more in a duly sanctioned post,
without the benefit or protection of an interim order of any Court or Tribunal. In the
present case, the petitioners are still working as Guest/Part Time Lecturers on the
basis of the protection given vide interim order dated 29.11.2019 passed in WP(C)
8795/2019. When the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Umadevi(3)(supra)
does not allow for counting of the services of temporary, contractual employees under
the protection of an order of a Court for the purposes of regularisation, the petitioners
cannot claim regularization on the ground that they have worked continuously as
Guest/Part-Time Lecturers for the period beyond the requirement of the State
respondents. The petitioners should have participated in the selection process
pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.05.2017, inasmuch as, on the date of
issuance of the said advertisement dated 25.05.2017, the petitioners had only
completed approximately 3 months of service as Guest/Part-Time Lecturers.
20. The above being said, the further fact remains that the advertisement dated
25.05.2017 was set aside by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) 2089/2020,
due to the fact that the selection process for filling up the vacant post of Lecturers
was to be conducted by the Assam Engineering Service Recruitment Board only,
instead of the APSC from the year 2020, as the 1981 Rules had been amended.
However, the Coordinate Bench while disposing of WP(C) 2089/2020, gave liberty to the
State respondents to advertise the same posts that were advertised in the
advertisement dated 25.05.2017 afresh, for filling up the same as per the amended
1981 Rules. Thus, when the Coordinate Bench has allowed the State respondents to
re-advertise the same posts mentioned in the earlier advertisement dated 25.05.2017,
by way of the present impugned advertisement dated 30.12.2024, the prayer of the
petitioners for setting aside the impugned advertisement dated 30.12.2024 cannot be
considered by this Court, inasmuch as, this Court does not have any appellate
jurisdiction/authority over the judgment of the Coordinate Bench passed in WP(C)
8795/2019.
21. It is also to be noted that the petitioners had taken part in the selection process
Page No.# 45/45
for filling up the post of Lecturers (Technical) and Lecturers (Non-Technical) on regular
basis, pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.02.2023. When the petitioners had
taken part in the selection process for filling up the regular post of Lecturers
(Technical) & (Non Technical) in terms of the advertisement dated 21.02.2023, there
can be no reasonable explanation for the petitioners to challenge the impugned
advertisement dated 30.12.2024 and it can be said that the petitioners had waived
any right they might have had, by the said participation. However, the petitioners do
not have any right to regularisation of their services and the petitioners can
participate in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 30.12.2024.
22. It is also seen that at the time of selection and appointment of the petitioners, the
petitioners had been selected by the Director of Technical Education and not by the
APSC, which was de hors the 1981 Rules. Accordingly, this Court does not find any
ground to direct the respondents to consider regularising the services of the
petitioners. Besides, this Court is of the view that the decisions cited by the parties do
not support the case of the petitioners.
23. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any ground to set
aside the impugned advertisement dated 30.12.2024 issued by the Chairman, Assam
Engineering Service Recruitment Board, insofar as it relates to the post of Lecturers
(Technical) & (Non Technical) in the various departments of the respective Polytechnic
Colleges of Assam. The further prayer for regularizing the services of the petitioners
in the sanctioned regular posts is also rejected due to the reasons given in the
foregoing paragraphs."
56. On a close perusal of the judgment & order, dated 28.01.2025,
passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)8795/2019, in the light of the
conclusions drawn by us, hereinabove, in the present order; we are of the
considered view that the findings and conclusions as recorded by the
learned Single Judge, vide the judgment & order, dated 28.01.2025, in
WP(c)8795/2019, are well-reasoned and supported by materials available
on record and accordingly, the same would not call for any interference.
57. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions; we are of the
considered view that the present writ appeal is bereft of any merit and
consequently, the same stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order
as to costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
